Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The community didn't want them. (and they are not a state and do not have any repesention in congress. So they are being Dictated to against their will.)
It's a package deal: people in DC get a voting member in the US House of Representatives-- And--- get their 2nd Amendment rights restored.
I am considered to be one of the "flaming liberals" on this board. I think this is a right and proper descision because it recognizes the basic right of an individual to be able to defend themselves and family. I am heartened by this political development.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW
I am considered to be one of the "flaming liberals" on this board. I think this is a right and proper descision because it recognizes the basic right of an individual to be able to defend themselves and family. I am heartened by this political development.
GOOD POST Greg..I have to wait to rep ya again!!
I am a right leaning democrat and have always felt that EVERY person who is an American citizen with a clean criminal record and above the age of 18 should be able to concealed carry anywhere within our borders without restriction.Do you think car jackings would continue if the douchebag perping the crime knew that there was a 75% chance that he was going to get his head blown off?? Would bank robbers take the chance if it was HIGHLY likely that the tellers and every customer in there would open up on them??? This has ALWAYS been my take on it and it is impossible to convince me otherwise.There WOULD be drawbacks of course,but since we all vote for the "common good" then these would be better than what we deal with today imo.
We are forming a cheering section on this topic. I have seen a bank where next to each teller was a holstered revolver in plain sight. Not recently though. I have heard that after Dade County Florida passed a concealed carry law the car jackers concentrated on rental cars because they knew the tourists were not likely to be able to defend themselves.
I do have some problems with absolute concealed carry on passenger airplanes because some jerk is likely to think a .44 magnum is an appropriate gun. The bullet from this could do far more damage than blowing a hijackers head off. I could damage the aircraft control and/or electronics. Instead of concealed carry, I suggest that a .410 ga shot pistol be placed in front of every passenger so in the event of a hijacking the hijacker is going to face odds of at least 50 to 1 against. That is a substantial deterrent even if the guy is a suicide.
Otherwise, as a responsible adult, why should my ability to defend myself be restricted? This applies regardless of economic or demographic status.
While I appreciate the whole "keep your guns so you can form a well-regulated militia" thing, the problem in DC (where I have lived for several years) is that their "well regulated militias" take the form of gangs.
Instead of fighting government, they fight us. Gun shots ring out at 3 in the morning in the middle of a drunken brawl as the bars are closing in Adams Morgan and innocent people die.
Rather ironically (seeing as the whole gun issue is about keeping government out of our lives), for months afterward, armored government police tanks and officers in riot gear with semi-automatic weapons stake out the neighborhood and turn it into a militarized zone not unlike DC was after 9/11 (because middle class people live and recreate there, not just the poor who don't seem to get the armored tank treatment).
The whole gun issue works out so well in rural areas (where I have also lived and avidly supported the hunting lifestyle). But you must respect the fact that good, innocent people in urban areas live in utter fear of interacting regularly and unwittingly with people who are not capable of sensibly handling a gun having access to using it any time they want. There's a reason urban people are more comfortable with government interference. It's not just welfare, it's because it protects them from the random acts of the millions of people surrounding them.
And, no, we do not want to live in a city where everybody has to carry a gun. One gun shot rings out then little Suzie Freshface out of college in her first internship on the Hill gets terrified and starts firing blindly anywhere and everywhere. That's like people who argue that peace comes from everybody having nuclear weapons. We can do better.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
While I appreciate the whole "keep your guns so you can form a well-regulated militia" thing, the problem in DC (where I have lived for several years) is that their "well regulated militias" take the form of gangs.
Instead of fighting government, they fight us. Gun shots ring out at 3 in the morning in the middle of a drunken brawl as the bars are closing in Adams Morgan and innocent people die.
Rather ironically (seeing as the whole gun issue is about keeping government out of our lives), for months afterward, armored government police tanks and officers in riot gear with semi-automatic weapons stake out the neighborhood and turn it into a militarized zone not unlike DC was after 9/11 (because middle class people live and recreate there, not just the poor who don't seem to get the armored tank treatment).
The whole gun issue works out so well in rural areas (where I have also lived and avidly supported the hunting lifestyle). But you must respect the fact that good, innocent people in urban areas live in utter fear of interacting regularly and unwittingly with people who are not capable of sensibly handling a gun having access to using it any time they want. There's a reason urban people are more comfortable with government interference. It's not just welfare, it's because it protects them from the random acts of the millions of people surrounding them.
And, no, we do not want to live in a city where everybody has to carry a gun. One gun shot rings out then little Suzie Freshface out of college in her first internship on the Hill gets terrified and starts firing blindly anywhere and everywhere. That's like people who argue that peace comes from everybody having nuclear weapons. We can do better.
Blue....I understand what you are saying BUT...Most gangbangers are convicted felons before they reach age 18 which this law would not apply to...a convicted felon is not (at least in my state) allowed to even be found in a house with a weapon that belongs to somebody else.Put convicted felons away for a mandatory 25 years that are caught with a gun and it wouldn't take long and that cycle would be broken.
I also do not agree that we can "do better"...we have tried that for to long with **** poor results.I do understand you tho'.
Well, gangs actually aren't a big phenomenon in DC. I was just using that as an example of organized crime.
A lot of the crime is just regular people.
Maybe we should have privately-held safeguard places in urban areas where people are not comfortable with the prevalence of guns that can hold guns for those who choose to own them and maybe provide shooting ranges and such so they can use them whenever they want to get practice.
Then, should the need arise for a well-regulated militia to over throw the government, they can organize that militia and go get their guns.
haha - I just thought of that. probably riddled with problems. Oh well. Ideas are good.
Click on: "Senate votes to ease DC gun restrictions' in the rolling "Breaking News " bar.
This stinks of Despotism. Regardless of how people feel on guns the people of DC have no vote and hardly any representation in Congress or the Senate and yet the senate sees fit to right their laws. Honestly how many of you would stand for a group of people you had no say in electing whatsoever writing the laws for your city. This is a sad day for government by the people.
And what of the body that just voted on this, the Senate, what representation will the district have there? None. Every other American has not one but, two senators who are responsible, in part, to them. On the other hand who do the people of DC have to contact regarding their greviences and ideas regarding Senate legislation? Who do they have as a voice in the senate? Who is responsible to them? The good people of the District of Columbia are being subjugated to laws they have no say in the making of and that is something that should not happen in America. Benevolent despotism perhaps but despotism all the same.
Last edited by Randomstudent; 03-03-2009 at 01:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..I have to wait to rep ya again
!!
